Absolute Morality...again.

Morals are seperate from Laws true. But you are creating a false arguement just because Morals are seperate from Law it does not mean that actions that aren't written into law become morally correct. I mean lets take your arguement and change murder to something else:if morals are seperate from laws, then it isn't morally wrong for me to sniff whiteout or sharpies excessively in my own mind.But since sniffing whiteout and sharpies makes a person high, and there is this illegality about drugs how do you reconcile it. Its not illegal/immoral to sniff sharpies and whiteout, but doing drugs is?Oh heres a good one. Its illegal/immoral to sell alchohol to minors yet minors are able to buy mouth rinse. You wouldn't hesitate to give mouth rinse to a minor yet right there you are distruabuiting alchohol.Or even better its illegal for minors to consume alchohol. Yet you wouldn't pause to give a child of 17 nyquill.Even better you'd have no problem with subordinates and superiors in an office sleeping together. That is arguably very immoral yet there are no laws against it, only laws against sexual harrasment.

How do dogs know how to swim?How do birds know how to fly?Why don't mammals eat their young? (for the most part at least)etc. etc. etc.

I don't think so. The question is whether one can paraphrase an idea precisely. If one can, then there's a non-verbal concept involved. The non-verbal concept would be the meaning of the text. There would only be one meaning.Poststructuralism would be false.

Then the argument still stands that morals aren't static, but rather, they are formulated by mere opinion. That means morals don't actually exist at all. But if that were the case, then how is that most people are able to understand what morals are if they weren't absolute? I intentionally chose that question because I knew this topic would surface. You tell me. Can the allegations of the US engaging in torture at Gitmo be considered immoral? If so, who gets to decide? See, its always going to be a catch-22 for the Relativist. He says that its immoral for anyone to decide for him/her if something is right or wrong. But, he/she expects everyone else to pander to his/her beliefs. If there is not a solid guidline for morality, then there is no basis for anyone to oppose anyone else's morality. Understand? That's your opinion that they are uneducated and ignorant. Its also your opinion that its wrong to stop Fetal Stem Cell Research. If you are a Relativist, then you have no basis for anything. You are a body of water, climbing a staircase of water, in a sky of water. You have no fixed referrence to anything and are anchored by nothing. And your penchant for fluidity is the very thing that will drown you. But when the waters recede, the Rock will remain. Who is, "they?" What difference does it make to you? That's their opinion. You have yours, and they have theirs. Right and wrong is arbitrary, right? There is nothing certain in this world, right? So what difference does it make to you? Who cares, because there is no such thing as morality apart from a person's own ability to decide for themselves what is right or wrong.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Sure. The problem is that both of those participants have agreed to be part of a society of law, of democratic enactment of civil statute, and they have to reach some kind of compromise as to what the law must be. To my mind, of course, that compromise is "people who want abortions get them; people who don't want them don't get them." In other words, the pro-choice position. Democracy. Maybe you've heard of it? Then what's the difference? In this case, it seems as though the proponents of "absolute morality" - who I imagine would be entirely opposed to abortion - are simply seeking a justification to suborn the legal democratic process.

Who, exactly, is saying this?

But laws stem from our ability to discern what is right and what is wrong. The reason why the law says that its wrong to commit murder is only because of the lawmakers ability to have a moral framework. How else do you think they came up with laws? If it wasn't out of a moral framework, then people create laws for inexplicable and arbitrary reasons. I don;t think that laws and morals are seperate. I'm playing the Devil's Advocate in order to show you that no matter which way you turn, you'll always be in check. Therefore, its check mate. Suppose that huffing is a crime in some states because the lawmakers feel a moral obligation because they are acquainted with the medical reasons on why huffing is dangerous. They didn't just invent laws for no apparent reason. They said, "Hey, kids huffing is bad. Its wrong. They shouldn't do that. Because I'm concerned for them, make it unlawful for them to do so." Not everything that is moral is written down on a written code. Because alcohol in the form of drink has only one purpose... That's to get drunk or to derive some sort of euphoric feeling from it. Mouthwash's intended purpose is to kill the bacteria that resides in your mouth. That's like saying no one is allowed to own knives for preparing meat or vegetables, because some people have broken the law and decided to stab someone with the knife. The absolute law, is, "You shall not commit murder." The relative law is, you can own knives if you "Do not commit murder," with them. Murder under any circumstance is absolutely wrong. The variables concerning the case are relative. Do you understand now? If you believe that morals are always relative, then yes, its arguable as to whether or not its immoral. Again, sexuality is not a crime. Sexual immorality, such as adultery, is.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I've agreed to nothing. I didn't say that I wanted to particpate in these laws. I was simly born. I don't have a choice. I have to follow the rules or I suffer the consequences of that diobedience. (Not that I am disagreeing that it should be any other way). But what if I was a Communist? They are impeding my personal preference. They are undermining my ability to formulate my own opinions. They are wielding absolute authority over me. Again, not that I disagree with Democracy, I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate. Because Absolutists believe that it is God's Law that makes it absolute in the first place, otherwise, everything really would relative. God's absolute Law trumps man's relativistic law.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

You're still here, aren't you? You hold an American passport, right? You pay taxes? You vote?Seems like you've agreed to a considerable amount. If you no longer wish to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America, you can probably reach Canada in an afternoon's drive from Portland. No, they're not. There's absolutely no barrier to you leaving the country. None whatsoever. Feel free to, by the way. But how do they know that they know the right absolute law? They don't; they have only their relativistic understanding of it.Therefore it's quite obvious that they're merely looking for a justification to suborn American democracy.

You said that participants have agreed to the laws. That isn't true in my case. Not that I'm argunig the point against Democracy. And yes, I pay taxes, but I have no control on where the funding goes to. And my vote does not allow me dictate whether or not I agree with murder. The rules were written long before I was born. Well, I have always wanted to go to Brittish Columbia. But, no, I'm happy beng an American and living in America. I'm just merely informing that my opinion played no role in the formation of American law. That's you're opinion. Is your opinion right or wrong? That's an excellent question. I mean, what if Islamic absolute law was true? This is the part where it comes down to recognition of the obvious and the imperceptable. Though there are good reasons for believing in anything given thing or phenomenon, so much ultimately comes down to faith. I'd say that as long as it isn't derived on the pretenses of a blind faith, then our suppositions concerning evidence, both pro and con, have merit. I guess a better question would be to ask how anyone knows anything? What if its all an illusion? The questions seem as though they never end. And as I said before, there are some who believe that absolutes and relativity end in a perpetual stalemate. I believe that they both exist.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I actually never got around to reading or figuring out what all this post this and that stuff was about.Do you recall that in Euclidean geometry certain terms are undefined. You have these axioms and you just have to intuitively accept that you know what a point is for example. Is a point in Euclidean geometry an example of a concept in your system? Now I'm thinking you are using "non-verbal concept" in the way that I would use referent. "Tomato" is a word for a thing you can eat. I ask you for a tomato and you hand me an apple we have had an unsuccesful communication. If I ask you for a tomato and you hand me something that I find satisfactory then our communication succeeded. This is very elementary description of language but is this what you are talking about?lfen

But, again, I've proved that it is true. Residency in this country is voluntary; you've voluntarily chosen to reside. Oh, so, indeed, you do choose to live here. Then what the hell are you talking about? No, that's a fact, and my statement of fact is factually correct.Is it just that you can't tell the difference between opinions and facts? Or do you believe that, as a moral relativist, I somehow can't do that? Blah blah blah... in other words "I pick the morals that I want to be absolute, and then I use the assertion of absoluteness to suborn the democratic process." Which is exactly what I said people like you were doing. Thanks for proving me right, I guess.

No, I was born a resident and the laws were established before I was born. But I'm not even sure what you're arguing about, being that I agree with Democracy, and I agree that if anyone doesn't like it, they have the freedom to move. You said that I have a choice about what lwas pass. That isn't true. That was the only argument you were making. I can't remember what this particular argument was on. Not while making contradictory claims. Uh, no, I believe that I have no say in morals. If you are a moral relativist, you pick and choose the morals, not me. I listen to what God says, you listen to the baser appetities of your own flesh. But hey, now you're just being mean-spirited, presumably because you realize the implications of your own argument.As I said, relativism will always undermine itself.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

You are arguing against a strawman. I doubt that any relativist would agree with "truth may change at the discretion of personal opinion." You also fail to distinguish between moral relativism and epistemic relativism. They are not the same, and only moral relativism is relevant to the current topic.In your definition of absolutism, you assert "Absolute truth states that truth is truth and to deviate from it would nulify its definition." However, that is completely circular and leaves "truth" as undefined and apparently without meaning.Some suggested reading on relativism:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy;
Wikipedia.

You're quite mistaken, and I invite you to go back and read more closely. Certainly you were not a participant in any democracy before you were born, that was never my contention. Not so. Didn't you say that it was based on faith? In other words - picking what you want to believe? That's what faith is, after all.